(PC) Morris v. Bradford et al, No. 2:2011cv01171 - Document 98 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/17/2018 RECOMMENDING the stay of these proceedings be lifted. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON E. MORRIS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:11-cv-1171 TLN DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.J. R. BRADFORD, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 14, 2016, defendants filed a motion for 19 summary judgment. (ECF No. 70.) On July 13, 2016, before he had filed an opposition to the 20 motion, plaintiff moved to stay this case based on his transfer to a prison where he did not have 21 access to his legal materials. (ECF No. 76.) On February 14, 2017, the court stayed these 22 proceedings until plaintiff regained access to his legal property. (ECF No. 87.) 23 On January 17, 2018, defendants informed the court that plaintiff had been transferred to a 24 prison where he should be permitted access to his legal materials. Defendants moved to re-open 25 this case. (ECF No. 88.) In a status report filed February 5, 2018, plaintiff informed the court 26 that he had been transferred to California State Prison-Los Angeles (“CSP-LAC”) but did not 27 have his legal property. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff stated that he had been told by prison officials 28 that his legal property was lost. 1 1 In an order filed February 22, 2018, the court ordered counsel for defendants to contact 2 the litigation coordinators at CSP-LAC, and if necessary, California State Prison-Sacramento 3 (“CSP-Sac”) to attempt to determine the whereabouts of plaintiff’s legal materials. (ECF No. 91.) 4 The court also ordered defendants’ counsel to file a response detailing their findings. 5 On March 16, 2018, defendants’ counsel informed the court that most of plaintiff’s legal 6 materials had been returned to him. (ECF No. 92.) However, those materials apparently did not 7 include the legal materials from this proceeding. Defendants were ordered to provide plaintiff 8 copies of the documents from this case that may be important to permit plaintiff to proceed with 9 the action. (ECF No. 94.) On April 17, 2018, defendants filed a statement that they have 10 provided plaintiff with copies of those documents. (ECF No. 97.) Defendants ask that the court 11 re-open this case and schedule the remaining briefing on their summary judgment motion. 12 Accordingly, the court will recommend this proceeding be re-opened. If and the district 13 judge adopts that recommendation, this court will schedule the remaining briefing on defendants’ 14 motion for summary judgment. 15 Thus, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the stay of these proceedings be lifted. 16 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 17 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 18 after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 19 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 20 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 21 specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 22 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: May 17, 2018 24 25 26 27 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/morr1171.lift stay fr 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.